Oz ,'Same Time, Same Place'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Bryan Singer to remake Excalibur.
OK, this strikes me as dumb as remaking Suspiria. Why remake movies so intrinsically tied to their directors? And honestly, I'd have more respect if he tried to remake Zardoz instead.
At least Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho I understood on a theoretical level - it was an art project, not a movie, whatever he said publicity-wise to the contrary. It was a BAD, completely wrong-headed art project, but I respect that kind of craziness.
Well. Excalibur is not a good movie. I support the idea of remaking terrible or kinda-okay movies, and fixing the problems. As a concept, anyway. Much better than redoing movies that were perfectly good the first time.
Van Sant's Psycho was basically a joke on the studio, wasn't it? I know I have an magazine interview where he explained how it came about in an amusing way. But I'd have to move to look it up, and if I do that I might as well go to bed. I'll try to remember to find it after I've slept.
Excalibur is not a good movie. I support the idea of remaking terrible or kinda-okay movies
Yeah, but it's a classic movie. I can see making another, better King Arthur story, but why you gotta make Excalibur again?
I know...I think remakes are getting out of hand.
Excalibur is considered a classic? I mean... as camp, I could see it. But really?
I should say: I'm fully prepared to believe that there are people somewhere who think it's perfect as is. I also believe that there are also people who think Twilight is perfect as is. But... in general? It's been a while since I sat through it, but I didn't think it was highly regarded.
I don't think classics and perfect are the same--I think Princess Bride is a classic, and it's hardly perfect.
Excalibur is frequently ludicrous, but it's got a visionary craziness that stamps it 100% the work of John Boorman (for similar cases, see also Zardoz and Exorcist II - visually lavish but WTF and "you've GOT to be kidding me" on so much more). Whereas, for example, great as it is, I think Deliverance could have been made by someone else (doing the book was pretty much going to produce the results you saw on the screen). Boorman certainly brought a lot to the party (so to speak), but that movie is also very much James Dickey.
I should also say, I'd rather see the work of a nutball visionary than a competent journeyman any day, much as I appreciate the skill that a journeyman director brings to the job.
Deadwood fans: We just watched the last two episodes last night. Did they know the show hadn't been renewed when they were shooting? Was that ever mentioned? I'm feeling like that wasn't what I expected for a series finale, and yet it works anyway, given the sort of iconic last shots of most of the characters.
Deadwood fans: We just watched the last two episodes last night. Did they know the show hadn't been renewed when they were shooting? Was that ever mentioned? I'm feeling like that wasn't what I expected for a series finale, and yet it works anyway, given the sort of iconic last shots of most of the characters.
Originally there was going to be a fourth season, which was reduced down to a TV movie (or movies), which HBO ultimately never came through on, so they were given hope they'd do more, but I suspect they also knew it might never come to pass.
Damn that stupid John from Cincinnati. Want more Deadwood!